Fascinating thread. The yank-bashing is rather blunt, seems to reflect the small-penis syndrome of the authors.

The real issue at hand is not nazism, communism or zionism, etc. Its how to resolve an issue with Iraq that the UNSC has been trying to address for 12 years. This effort has been supported by both amercian political parties, and most of the other UNSC members have also had changes of government in the interim, whilst continuing to support the UN mission for disarmament.

The debate is not one of strategy (read ideology), rather one of tactics - no credible case has been made that Iraq should be left alone (at least not one subscribed by the UNSC members).

Its just a matter of how (peacefully) or when (troops) ...

and Biz, I concur with Coyote, those multi-posts were overkill - you're position was already pretty clear. I'm a little suspicious of the rantings for fairness that issue from one of the most expensive suburbs in the world.

We could even start a debate if the US did not snare Japan into a trapb by feeding them misleading information and have a pretext to enter the war. We would then have to discuss what are reliable sources. Strangely enough, much of what I have read about the wrongdoings of the US (but I little parenthesis here, the US have also done lots of good things, but we are discussing war) cames from USA researchers and publications. One which is appaling is the www.nsa.org, at least to me. The information they have declassified, mainly the one about the CIA in latinamerica, makes me vomit. One of the reasons I think I do not like BUsh is because he was head of the CIA and was responsible of many of the decisions involved in gathering information from the latin countries and using that information to put a finaical and political stranglehold in these nations.If the US became Nazi...good questions, I just read an article in this forum where they say that BUsh granpa was Hitler's banker.

Instead of the government looking out for the racist interests of it's citizens, with Nazi like enthusiasm, it subverts it's citizens racial interests in favor of the interests of it's main racial foe, not even realizing it.

The race card is the weakest of arguments, but it is interesting how it almost always wins in the minds of jurors.
Was Jesus trying in a nice way, to tell us we did not have the capacity to judge facts?

(AP) - A man was charged with trespassing in a mall after he refused to take off a T-shirt that said "Peace on Earth" and "Give peace a chance." Mall security approached Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger, on Monday night after they were spotted wearing the T-shirts at Crossgates Mall in a suburb of Albany, the men said. The two said they were asked to remove the shirts made at a store there, or leave the mall.

Just another example of how the media slants stories. You must understand that the mall is a private business, not a government building or the street. The mall owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to shop there. If you don't like their policies, you can shop elsewhere.

In this situation, the mall owner felt that the anti-war stance is unpopular enough to have the possibility of creating a scene in the mall. Perhaps a screaming contest, or even violence. The mall owner did not want this happening in his mall. Thus they were asked to cover or change the controversial shirts, or leave. They refused to do either. Once you are asked by a business owner to leave, and you refuse, then you are criminally trespassing. The police come and arrest you for that. These people were not arrested for wearing anti-war T-shirts, which are perfectly legal in this country.

This very thing happened to me one time. I was yelling at fans for the other team at a high school football game. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but this was at a school facility and when school officials asked me to leave, if I had not I would have been trespassing, and I could have been arrested. They were absolutely correct.

Daduron, you're just an American hater. You don't know what you're talking about. The United States is the best, most moral country on earth, and the farthest thing from Naziism. George W. Bush (who has never been in the CIA) is a fine Christian man, at the helm of the kindest nation in the history of the world.

Texas Al,
I understand your explanation and I believe it is feasible. The problem I see is that in a climate of fear, paranoia and unbridled patriotism, a simple thing such as a harmless statement of protest took on an exaggerrated magnitude resulting in an arrest by civil authorities. For a place such as the US, I would think this is a major concern because it indicates what could possibly become an all pervading mentality. I am sure this man will be defended to the hilt, but it is disturbing nonetheless.

Probably the worst period in our history was the McCarthy period. But he eventually disgraced himself and even became a noun in the dictionary {"McCarthyism."} During our civil war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus meaning that several civil rights were no longer in effect.

As to Nazism being in play or going to happen in the U.S. I see little evidence of that happening. There is such a thing as our constitution and the seperation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. It has worked pretty well.

Had I been the mall owner, I probably would not have even brought it up. But if I fear that violence might happen and property or persons might be injured in my mall, then, because everybody sues everybody in this country, I might have to consider asking them to leave. If they refused, I don't know what I would have done.

Since 9/11 folks are a mite sensitive, so anyone wearing such T-shirts is probably trying to start something anyway.

Make no question about it, the vast majority of Americans are pissed off, and support war against Iraq. With or without the U.N. (who ever asks them anyway, other than us?).

(a) the constitution of the country you and I live in
( the intent of the Bill of Rights

The logic of dismissing someone from a private shopping mart because their display of political opinions might create a riot or result in lost business is the type of logic that leads straight to a Jim Crow society and/or Fascism. The founding fathers knew this and specifically set up a government to prevent such abuses of freedom.

During the revolutionary era, the British used the logic you describe to disband public assembly and forbid criticism of King George. During the 30's in Germany, the Nazis use the logic you describe to ban Jews from public and private places. Soon the Jews were walled off and ghettoized. During the 1900s up until the 1960s, the American South used such logic to ban blacks from private places accessible only to whites. During the Vietnam protests, the police forces in America used such logic to quell protests.

There is no consitutional right to own a business, make money or own private property. Please reread our constitution should you doubt this. Our founding fathers were serious property owners and businessman. They purposefully DID NOT attach to property owners or business any such rights to restrict *Freedom of Speech*. In fact, they subjugated all government endeavors to the "natural rights of man" described by Donne and Rousseau through the creation of The Bill of Rights. The greatest manifestation of personal liberty in this country is freedom of speech.

There is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. This right is cannot delegated to the states, business, or property owners to change. As a country, we have no business supporting the rights of business or private property owners to suppress freedom of speech. Nor would any patriot of any color, creed, or background choose to validate anyone who would suppress freedom of speech by such pitiful, selfish and dangerous logic as fear of a riot or loss from commercial enterprise.

Your logic and lack of patriotism disgusts me. It is precisely when I hear such logic that I know how ripe our country is for the development of fascism.

rferrisx, if its my business, I call the shots. Thats freedom from government intervention, a pro-business, conservative stance. If you are on my property and I ask you to leave and you refuse, then you are breaking the law. You have the right to use profanity and fire off the rod all you want to, but if you do it in my establishment, then you are interfering with the rights of others. My establishment - MY rules. You don't like my rules, then don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.

The arrest was for trespassing, not for wearing the T-shirts.

I agree its a sad state of affairs when we are this sensitive, and I'm not sure I agree with the mall owner, but have the right not to patronize that mall if I don't like their policies.

Fortunately this forum allows us to express our differing views. However, if it was the policy of this forum not to allow the discussion of controversial subjects, then we are welcome to move on to the next site. If its my site, then I will make the rules.

G. W. Bush has some good men behind him, too. Colin Powell is a little soft and if were not for his detailed knowledge about what is going on in Iraq he would be the first to push for constraint. Rumsfeld tells the truth and speaks his mind, sometimes stepping on toes in the process. He's the secretary of defense for goodness sake. We sure don't won't some wuss in that position. Condeleeza Rice is one of the smartest people around, and we are lucky to have her as National Security Advisor.

I'm not the biggest fan of our Attorney General, or even our Homeland Security Secretary. But they have a tough job. Some of what they are doing pushes the envelope in terms of interfering with people's rights, but I'm willing to sacrifice just a little during this acute phase of trying to catch some of these terrorists. It'll all go back to normal some day.

In my opinion we should just close our borders to ANY foreigners period, since quite a few of them are just here to kill us. But no, we'll bring 'em over here and give them engineering degrees so that they can plot our demise.

I am interested in this part because no one in America seems to discuss the obvious: For fifty years the Soviet Union and the United States fought poxy wars-Cuba, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, you-name-it. Billions of dollars, millions of lost lives around the developing world. The Cold War ended ("in theory"). Then we fought some 'multilateral' ('in theory') wars: Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan. At least if there were disagreements, these wars were not "proxy" wars or did not fit that model.

What are the consequences of returning to 'unilateral wars'? Is it not logical to assume that this could restart the cold war and war by proxy? For example, Syria is a Chinese client state as far as the arms trade goes. Iran is a Russian client state as far as the arms trade goes. If we pummel our troops down the throat of Iraq between these two client states without UN approval, what is to guarantee that Syria and Iran won't team up (perhaps armed with Russian EM weaponry or Chinese laser ASAT weaponry) and slaughter American troops?

What then? A long drawn out war with fervent Islamicists backed by Russian and Chinese arms. [Sounds like Afghanistan in the 80s in reverse, but instead of Stingers from the U.S. the Islamicists get lasers, EM and ASAT weaponry from Russia and China.]

Imagine the consequences for Americans: our stock market tanks and stays down, millions of layoffs, foreclosures, gas at $5/gallon. This will mean worldwide depression except for possibly Russia and China whose economies are large and growing. I don't understand why no one is seriously discussing the consequences of a long drawn out war or serious defeat through advanced weaponry. It is as if Americans are brainwashed by repeated CNN newsclips of our supposed "technological superiority" in weapons development. No one discusses the fact the the "grave consequences" Putin refers to if America invades Iraq could be economic collapse for our country.